On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 16:20 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
(Backing up this thread a bit).
> > It seems like much of this would be candidates for adding to
> > libxendevicemodel, but the underlying unstable interfaces pose a problem
> > there. I'm going to leave this for another day.
>
> Does
On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 13:49 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> > If we were to just say "xc_domain_add_to_physmap and
> > xc_domain_pin_memory_cacheattr are now stable" then having them in a
> > libxendevicemodel would be incorrect, since they are not in any way
> > specific to device models.
>
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 11:07 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 16:20 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll just answer this bit, since it ties into your other answers, I
>
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 16:20 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >
> > > I think having three or four functions in libxendevicemodel which offer
> > > these exact facilities while retaining the underlying (possibly more
> > > flexible) functionality in
On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 16:20 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> > I think having three or four functions in libxendevicemodel which offer
> > these exact facilities while retaining the underlying (possibly more
> > flexible) functionality in libxenctrl for other users (dombuilder, other in
> >
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 16:20 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> I'll just answer this bit, since it ties into your other answers, I think.
>
> > Does the Xen<->libxc interface need to be stable for libxendevicemodel
> > to have a stable ABI?
>
> We
On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 11:07 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 16:20 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >
> > I'll just answer this bit, since it ties into your other answers, I
> > think.
> >
> > > Does the Xen<->libxc interface
On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 16:20 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> > I think it would be reasonable to add a new library (say,
> > libxendevicemodel, for arguments sake) with a stable ABI and to move all of
> > the xc_hvm_* above into it. They are not used for anything else and are
> > based on
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> (Trimming CCs a bit)
>
> On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 16:22 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > Still to come would be libraries for specific out of tree purposes
> > (device model, kexec), which would be adding new library at the same
> > level as
On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 16:20 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
I'll just answer this bit, since it ties into your other answers, I think.
> Does the Xen<->libxc interface need to be stable for libxendevicemodel
> to have a stable ABI?
We could:
1) support multiple versions of Xen in a single
In <1431963008.4944.80.ca...@citrix.com> I proposed stabilising some
parts of the libxenctrl API/ABI by disaggregating into separate
libraries.
This is v5 of that set of series against:
xen
qemu-xen
qemu-xen-traditional
mini-os
NB: Samuel+minios-devel will only get the mini-os
I've just sent out v5. Anyone got any thoughts on how to proceed with qemu-
xen?
On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 16:47 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> (Trimming CCs a bit)
>
> On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 16:22 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > Still to come would be libraries for specific out of tree
(Trimming CCs a bit)
On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 16:22 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
[...]
> Still to come would be libraries for specific out of tree purposes
> (device model, kexec), which would be adding new library at the same
> level as libxc I think, rather than underneath, i.e. also using the
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
